Proof in criminal case needs higher level of certainty

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing this letter with reference to the article, ‘Defence lawyer, witness in 2021 airport cocaine trial in war of words’, published on October 25.

The defendant, Indra Waite, will be set free or discharged of all charges. This is because this is a criminal case, and so the prosecution has to show proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, not ‘a preponderance of evidence’.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the amount of proof necessary for a conviction in a criminal case.

The standard of proof in a criminal case requires a much higher level of certainty than does a preponderance of evidence.

‘Preponderance of evidence’ requires a mere 51 per cent or greater probability, and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ requires closer to 100 per cent.

The prosecution dropped the charge of conspiracy, which is actually the core of the case. I believe, this was because a plot or a scheme to commit a crime could not be proven beyond “a reasonable doubt” in a court of law.

The prosecution witness admitted that “three important elements are missing. They were not on the document. The time when the interview commenced and the time when the interview completed; and the offence with which the defendant was charged”.

Based upon the above three important missing elements, the prosecution dropped the conspiracy charge. I believe if the defence lawyer submits a no-case submission to the judge he will be successful. This is because the prosecution case, taken at its highest, is insufficient to support a finding of guilt.

In other words, the test for a no-case submission “ is whether the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, can support a verdict of guilty.

I believe, based upon the evidence presented, the judge will assess a no-case submission by asking whether the prosecution evidence, when viewed in the most favourable light, the court, could not support a finding of guilt.

For example, for the purpose of a ‘no case to answer’ submission, the prosecution evidence is assessed based on whether it supports a finding of guilt, if acceded.

Finally, I strongly believe, when the trial resumes, the defence lawyer will make a no-case submission to the court. This is when the defence considers that the prosecution case does not support a finding of guilt, and that the court should dismiss the charge without the defence having to present a case.

CARGILL KELLY